Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Advice (as in blunt truths) for confused (ex?)-"audiophile"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advice (as in blunt truths) for confused (ex?)-"audiophile" - Page 9

post #121 of 195
7/14/09 at 1:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post
No, you anti-cablers think we're irrational for giving the finger to established "facts" and trusting our own ears.
Sometimes holding an opinion about the world that differs from one held by everyone else is brave, as in the story of the emperor's new clothes.

Other times, it is stubbornness rather than bravery in action.

I doubt that the players can accurately tell which is which.
Reply
post #122 of 195
7/14/09 at 1:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by upstateguy View Post
...I remember sitting right next to you when you were sure you had identified ..the $1000 coaxial cable ...only to discover that you were actually not listening to that cable.
Yes, that was a decent blind experiment. Not perfect, but enough to convince me that (with reasonably high probability, and for my ears) any decent 75 ohm cable will -- with a modern DAC -- sound as good as an uber expensive digital cable when using S/PDIF.

This now guides my personal buying. I do not believe you can extend these conclusions to anyone else -- we need to do a lot more of the type of blind experiments we did (relaxed, AB not ABX, swindles included, etc.) to generalize the conclusion.

But it is more interesting to turn our attention to analog ICs, which is what I am now doing.
Reply
post #123 of 195
7/14/09 at 1:14am
To the posters who think it is easy to design a good blind experiment, or that the ones in AES are well done, I strongly suggest you read up on response bias. It wrecks nearly all statistical tests in this area.

The food industry -- billions of dollars at stake -- wrestles with this, and their statistical sensory discrimination methods are way different than ABX. Check out: sensory testing methods -- GIYF.

We have a long way to go. We need relaxed, at home, no peers around, no experiment leaders at the front of the room, time extended, many-listening-session blind tests.

These are not easy to create, for many reasons. I'm working on some methods for doing this. Maybe others are too, don't know. Some studies in Europe have proceeded in similar ways.
Reply
post #124 of 195
7/14/09 at 2:31am
phork, the 'emperor's clothes' parable fits perfectly the cable issue. If some people get a kick out of spending $2000 or whatever on a cable, that is their prerogative. however, if you really do care about acoustics and that sort of thing, then scientific studies are what you ought to follow.

Likewise, if you get your jollies out of worshipping a specific motor-oil over the others, and feel smart when you tell everyone that pennzoil *is clearly the only oil that matters*, so be it. However, if you really do care which oil is better for your engine, independent, scientific studies are what you should be concerned about.

Clearly, scientific studies can settle things like the cable question, but there is a relatively large audiophile cable industry counteracting that. Remember when the scientific community discovered that smoking causes cancer, or when the severity of global warming was realized? Action was delayed by decades. In fact, we still have to put up with climate-change-denier's here in the US. Do not underestimate the power of the wealthy.
Reply
post #125 of 195
7/14/09 at 2:59am
Reading through this thread, it seems that many of us start from the assumption that scientific studies "prove" differences or lack of differences in audio components. I wish it were so - the world would quickly migrate towards the "best" components. Science is valuable, but it is far from perfect and the application of science to human perception is even less perfect. I work in a field that is based on the results of peer reviewed, scientifically constructed experiments with variables that most believe are easily measured and I can't tell you the controversy that ensues in interpreting the results, both to the accuracy and to the real life application of many, perhaps most of our studies.

It is clear that each of us have our own views, but it saddens me that this thread has so often derided the views and occasionally the sensibilities of others with different views. If the truth were really that clear, this would be a very short thread and a very short discussion in general. While I do have an opinion about the objectivity debate, it is clear that there is reasonable evidence on both sides of the debate - evidence that demands respect.

OK, my rant is done. Thank you.
Reply
post #126 of 195
7/14/09 at 9:29am
People reap what they sow so there's no point being sad over how dumb they act.
Reply
post #127 of 195
7/14/09 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry View Post
If the truth were really that clear, this would be a very short thread and a very short discussion in general.
Sadly, that's not how the human brain works. There are lots of cases where the "truth" is blatantly clear, yet still cause discussions. 5 percent of all Americans believe in the moon hoax.
Reply
post #128 of 195
7/14/09 at 11:14am
I believe in the moon hoax.
Reply
post #129 of 195
7/14/09 at 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post
I believe in the moon hoax.
Reply
post #130 of 195
7/14/09 at 1:57pm
From this month's "Scientific American" July 2009

"I Want To Believe" by Michael Shermer (pg. 33)

"What I want to believe based on emotions and what I should believe based on evidence does not always coincide."

"Science begins with the null hypothesis which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise."

"... the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney."

"....The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it."


USG
Reply
post #131 of 195
7/14/09 at 2:06pm
Oh wow scientific method teh best method 4 ascertaining facts. Someone give Michael a nobel prize he sounds like secondary great scientist lord kelvin.
Reply
post #132 of 195
7/14/09 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post
Oh wow scientific method teh best method 4 ascertaining facts. Someone give Michael a nobel prize he sounds like secondary great scientist lord kelvin.
QFT
Reply
post #133 of 195
7/14/09 at 2:16pm
Quit worshiping white coats.
Reply
post #134 of 195
7/14/09 at 9:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry View Post
... Science is valuable, but it is far from perfect and the application of science to human perception is even less perfect...
What a great post. Perfectly put.
Reply
post #135 of 195
7/14/09 at 10:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry View Post
While I do have an opinion about the objectivity debate, it is clear that there is reasonable evidence on both sides of the debate - evidence that demands respect.

OK, my rant is done. Thank you.
No, thank you for stating what is the one thing that everybody should agree upon -- but they don't . . . and won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry View Post
I work in a field that is based on the results of peer reviewed, scientifically constructed experiments with variables that most believe are easily measured and I can't tell you the controversy that ensues in interpreting the results, both to the accuracy and to the real life application of many, perhaps most of our studies.
You mean obtaining the correct answer to certain scientific questions is not always as simple as it might appear at first? Shocking!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Advice (as in blunt truths) for confused (ex?)-"audiophile"